RESTRICTED  WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  G/SG/M/36 
2 February 2010 
 (10-0532) 
Committee on Safeguards  
 
  
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING 
HELD ON 19 OCTOBER 2009  
 
Chairperson:  Ms Poonam Deneswaree Mohun
 
 
 
1. The Committee on Safeguards (the "Committee") held a regular meeting on 19 October 2009. 
2. Regarding "Other Business", no Member took th e floor.  The Chairperson stated that she 
wished to make a short statement under "Other Busi ness" on clerical and procedural matters relating 
to existing notifications. 
3. With this, the following agenda was adopted: 
A. NATIONAL LEGISLATION ............................................................................................................2  
1. Bahrain – Review of New Legislative Notification.................................................................3  
2. Norway – Review of New Legislative Notification .................................................................3  
3. Chinese Taipei – Review of Ne w Legislative Notification .....................................................3  
4. Thailand – Review of New Legislative Notification ...............................................................3  
5. Dominican Republic – Continuing Review of Previously Reviewed Notifications..............4  
6. Honduras – Continuing Review of Previously Reviewed Notifications ...............................4  
7. Panama – Continuing Review of Previously Reviewed Notifications ..................................5  
B. NOTIFICATIONS OF ACTIONS RELATED TO SAFEGUARD MEASURES ..........................................6  
1. Argentina – Compact Discs Recordable .................................................................................6  
2. Brazil – Desiccated Coconut .................................................................................................... 6 
3. Chile – Powdered Milk and Gouda Cheese ............................................................................6  
4. Croatia – Semi-Hard Cheese and Cheese Substitutes ...........................................................7  
5. Dominican Republic – Glass Containers ................................................................................7  
6. India – Phthalic Anhydride..................................................................................................... .7 
7. India – Dimethoate Technical..................................................................................................7  
8. India – Unwrought Aluminium, Aluminium Waste and Aluminium Scraps......................8  
9. India – Plain Particle Board................................................................................................... ..8 
10. India – Acrylic Fibre.......................................................................................................... .......9  
11. India – Hot Rolled Coils/Sheets/Strips....................................................................................9  
12. India – Coated Paper and Paper Board..................................................................................9  G/SG/M/36 
Page 2  
 
  13.
 India – Uncoated Paper and Copy Paper ...............................................................................9  
14. India – Oxo Alcohols........................................................................................................... ....10  
15. India – Sodium Hydroxide .....................................................................................................10  
16. Indonesia – Dextrose Monohydrate ......................................................................................10  
17. Israel – Steel  Rebars .......................................................................................................... .....10  
18. Jordan – Ceramic Tiles ......................................................................................................... .11 
19. Jordan – White Cement.......................................................................................................... 11 
20. Kyrgyz Republic – Wheat of Flour .......................................................................................11  
21. Morocco – Polyvinyl Chloride (PVC)....................................................................................11  
22. Morocco – Cera mic Tiles........................................................................................................ 12 
23. Philippines – Steel Angle Bars ...............................................................................................12  
24. Philippines – Gl ass Mirrors ...................................................................................................1 2 
25. Philippines – Figured Glass.................................................................................................... 13 
26. Philippines – Float Glass ...................................................................................................... ..13 
27. Turkey – Footwear.............................................................................................................. ....14  
28. Turkey – Motorcycles........................................................................................................... ..14 
29. Turkey – Vacuum Cleaners ...................................................................................................14  
30. Turkey –Steam Smoothing Irons...........................................................................................14  
31. Turkey – Salt .................................................................................................................. .........15  
32. Turkey – Matches ............................................................................................................... ....15  
33. Ukraine – Casing and Pump-Compressor Seamless............................................................15  
34. Ukraine – Sheet Glass.......................................................................................................... ...16 
35. Viet Nam – Float Glass......................................................................................................... ..16 
C. TRANSITIONAL REVIEW UNDER PARAGRAPH 18 OF THE PROTOCOL OF ACCESSION OF 
THE PEOPLE 'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA TO THE WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION ..............................16  
D. POSSIBLE IMPROVEMENTS TO NOTIFICATIONS ..........................................................................17  
E. PROPOSAL CONCERNING THE TIME -PERIOD TO BE CONSIDERED FOR THE 
CALCULATION OF IMPORT SHARE FOR PURPOSES OF ARTICLE  9.1............................................18  
F. OTHER BUSINESS .......................................................................................................................18  
G. ANNUAL REPORT TO THE COUNCIL FOR TRADE IN GOODS .........................................................18  
H. DATE OF NEXT REGULAR MEETING ............................................................................................19  
 
 
A. NATIONAL LEGISLATION  
4. The Chairperson  stated that the first item on the Co mmittee's agenda was the review of 
notifications of national safeguards legislation and/or regulations, in accordance with the procedures 
adopted by the Committee at its special meeting in April 1996.  G/SG/M/36 
 Page 3 
 
 
  5. Concerning the procedure for this meeting, the Chairperson stated that she would first give 
the floor to the Member whose legislation was be ing reviewed, to make any introductory statement 
that it wished.  Members would then be given an opportunity to present questions orally.  After the 
meeting, there would be a period for the submissi on of additional written ques tions concerning any of 
the legislative notifications reviewed at this meeting. 
6. The Chairperson stated that if Members wished to have written answers to questions, they had 
to ensure that all questions were presented in writi ng to the Member concerned, and to the Secretariat, 
no later than 9 November 2009.  She stated that wr itten answers to all questions submitted in writing 
by that deadline should be submitted to the Secretariat no later than 30 November 2009. 
1. Bahrain – Review of New Legislative Notification  
7. The Chairperson  noted that the legislative notification from Bahrain was contained in 
document G/SG/N/1/BHR/2.  She noted that no wr itten questions concerning this notification had 
been received. 
8. The representative of the United States  requested an estimation of when the translated version 
of the notification would be provided. 
9. The Chairperson  noted that Bahrain did not have a representative present at the meeting, and 
asked the Secretariat to convey the question to the delegation of Bahrain. 
2. Norway – Review of New Legislative Notification 
10. The Chairperson  noted that the legislative notification from Norway was contained in 
document G/SG/N/1/NOR/4.  She noted that written questions concerning this notification had been 
received from the United States in document G/SG/Q1/NOR/2. 
11. The representative of Norway  took the floor to explain its system in response these 
questions.1 
12. The representative of the United States  indicated that the United States looked forward to 
receiving Norway's answers in writing.   
3. Chinese Taipei2 – Review of New Legislative Notification 
13. The Chairperson  noted that the legislative notificatio n from Chinese Taipei was contained in 
document G/SG/N/1/TPKM/2/Suppl.3. 
14. There were no comments or questions regarding this notification. 
4. Thailand – Review of New Legislative Notification 
15. The Chairperson  noted that the legislative notification from Thailand was contained in 
document G/SG/N/1/THA/3.  She noted that written questions concerning this notification had been 
received from the United States in document G/SG/Q1/THA/1. 
16. The representative of Thailand  stated that he would provide preliminary responses to the 
United States' questions orally, and would circulat e its responses in writing later.  In response to 
                                                      
1 The responses were subsequently circulated as document G/SG/Q1/NOR/3.  
2 The Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu. The same throughout this 
document.  G/SG/M/36 
Page 4  
 
  Question 1, he stated that the WTO Safeguards Agre ement was not self-implemen ting under Thai law.  
He stated that in the event of a conflict be tween the WTO Safeguards Agreement and the Thai 
Safeguards Act, Thailand's WTO obligations would ta ke precedence, as set forth in section 41 of the 
Safeguards Act.  In response to Ques tion 2, he stated that the term "interested parties" was not defined 
in Article 3.1 of the Safeguards Agreement.  He st ated that under the Thai Safeguards Act, the same 
standard applied to both domestic and foreign inte rested parties, and that it was ensured that a 
particular trade association was in fact an interested  party.  In response to Question 3, regarding non-
disclosure and confidentiality, he stated that memb ers of the Thai Committee on Safeguard Measures 
were subject to section 21 of the Thai Safeguards Act.  He also stated that the law did not limit members of the Thai Committee on Safeguard Measure s to government officials.  In response to 
Question 4, he stated that the Thai Committee on Safeguard Measures had full authority in making 
determinations on whether or not to impose, adjust  or terminate safeguard measures, and that the 
Department of Foreign Trade merely made proposals.   In response to Question 5, he stated that 
Section 14 indeed referred to self-initiated investigation by the Department of Foreign Trade.  In response to Question 6, he stated that the Thai Committee on Safeguard Measures was the only 
decision-maker.  In response to Question 7, he stated that the draft ministerial regulations had not yet 
been approved by the Cabinet, and that Thaila nd would notify the final regulations to the WTO 
Safeguards Committee after they had been approved and published in the Royal Gazette.  In response 
to Question 8, he stated that safeguard notifica tions would be published in the Royal Gazette, and 
could also be viewed on the website of the Departme nt of Foreign Trade.  In response to Question 9, 
he asked the United States to clarify this questi on because section 19 pertained to the investigation 
while section 22 pertained to the determination of provisional measures.  In response to Question 10, 
he stated that once a notification to terminate a provisional safeguard measure was released, a refund 
order would also be notified to the Thai Customs De partment.  He stated that the Customs Department 
regulations and procedures con cerning refund proceedings can be viewed on their website.  In 
response to Question 11, he confirmed that secti on 41 of the Thai Safeguards Act ensured that 
Thailand would comply with its obligatio ns under the WTO Safeguards Agreement. 
17. The representative of the United States
 indicated that the United States looked forward to 
receiving Thailand's written answers. 
5. Dominican Republic – Continuing Review of Previously Reviewed Notifications 
18. The Chairperson  noted that the legislative notification from the Dominican Republic was 
contained in document G/SG/N/1/DOM/2/Suppl.1 , which was taken up at the last Committee 
meeting.  She noted that written questions concer ning this notification had been received from the 
United States in document G/SG/Q1/DOM/3, and th at the Dominican Republic had submitted replies 
to the questions in document G/SG/Q1/DOM/4. 
19. The representative of the United States  requested further clarification from the Dominican 
Republic regarding the third question posed by the United States. 
20. The representative of the Dominican Republic  asked the United States to submit the question 
in writing.3 
6. Honduras – Continuing Review of Previously Reviewed Notifications 
21. The Chairperson  noted that the legislative notification from Honduras was contained in 
document G/SG/N/1/HND/3, which was taken up at the last Committee meeting.  She noted that 
written questions concerning this no tification had been received from the United States in document 
G/SG/Q1/HND/4. 
                                                      
3 The question was subsequently circulated as document G/SG/Q1/DOM/5.   G/SG/M/36 
 Page 5 
 
 
  22. The representative of Honduras  made a brief presentation addressing some of the issues raised 
by the United States, and stated that it would sub sequently submit responses to the questions from the 
United States in writing.4 
23. The representative of the United States  stated that the United States looked forward to 
receiving the responses of Honduras in writing. 
7. Panama – Continuing Review of Previously Reviewed Notifications 
24. The Chairperson  noted that the legislative notification from Panama was contained in 
document G/SG/N/1/PAN/2/Suppl.1, which was taken up at the last Committee meeting.  She noted 
that written questions concerning this notifica tion had been received from the United States in 
document G/SG/Q1/PAN/2.  
25. The representative of Panama  stated that it had submitted its responses in writing very 
recently.5 
26. The representative of the United States  stated that she was looking forward to the English 
translation. 
27. The Chairperson  stated that this concluded the ag enda items related to legislative 
notifications, and reminded Members that th e deadline for written questions concerning any 
legislation reviewed at this meeting was 9 Nove mber 2009.  The deadline for written answers to all 
written questions, including questions submitte d in writing prior to this meeting, was 
30 November 2009.  Concerning these deadlines, she reminded the Committee of the importance of providing written answers to written questions posed.  The exchange of written questions and answers 
constituted the Committee's only record of the review  of legislation.  Thus, the Committee's records 
were left incomplete when written questions were  not answered, or only answered long after the 
meeting where the review took place.  She stated th at, in order to help Members keep track of the 
questions posed and the responses submitted, any ques tions left unanswered would be indicated in the 
draft annotated agenda of the next Committee meeting. 
28. Before proceeding to the next agenda item, the Chairperson informed the Committee that 
there were still 32 Members that had not yet made a legislative notification.
6  She stated that she 
would not read out the names of those Members, but  regretted that the number of Members that had 
failed to make any legislative notification remain ed high.  She appreciated that many of these 
Members were not represented at the meeting.  Nevert heless, in the interest of transparency, she urged 
these Members to make the required notification.  She recalled that in cases where no legislation 
exists, only a very simple "nil" notification was re quired.  If delegations ha d any questions regarding 
the procedures for notifications they should feel fr ee to contact the Secretariat or the Chairperson. 
29. Finally, the Chairperson commended the delega tion of Zambia for having made its first 
legislative notification, and indicated that it w ould be taken up at the spring 2010 meeting.  
30. The Committee took note  the statements made. 
                                                      
4 Subsequently circulated as document G/SG/Q1/HND/5.  
5 Subsequently circulated as document G/SG/Q1/PAN/3.   
6 These Members were: Angola, Antigua & Barbuda, Belize, Burkina Faso, Cambodia, Cameroon, 
Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Congo, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Djibouti, Gabon, the 
Gambia, Grenada, Guinea Bissau, Guyana, Kuwait, Mali, Mauritania, Mozambique, Nepal, Niger, Papua New Guinea, Rwanda, Saint Kitts & Nevis, Saint Vincent & Gr enadines, Sierra Leone, Solomon Islands, Swaziland, 
Tanzania, Togo, and Tonga. G/SG/M/36 
Page 6  
 
  B. N
OTIFICATIONS OF ACTIONS RELATED TO SAFEGUARD MEASURES  
31. The Chairperson  noted that various notifications of ac tions related to safeguard measures had 
been received since the last meeting.  In order to  ensure that all of these notifications could be 
reviewed in the limited time available, the Chairp erson suggested that the Committee address relevant 
safeguard investigations as separate agenda items, and review all of the notifications pertaining to 
each separate investigation at the same time. 
1. Argentina – Compact Discs Recordable 
32. The Chairperson  noted that Argentina had made a notification regarding an investigation on 
compact discs recordable in document G/SG/N/11/ARG/5/Suppl.3. 
33. There were no comments or questions regarding this notification. 
2. Brazil – Desiccated Coconut  
34. The Chairperson  noted that Brazil had made a notifi cation regarding an investigation on 
desiccated coconut in document G/SG/N/6/BRA/4. 
35. There were no comments or questions regarding this notification. 
3. Chile – Powdered Milk and Gouda Cheese  
36. The Chairperson  noted that Chile had made a notification regarding the initiation of an 
investigation on powdered milk and Go uda cheese in document G/SG/N/6/CHL/12. 
37. There were no comments or questions regarding this notification. 
38. The representative of Chile  then took the floor to state that Chile had notified, after the 
closing of the agenda for the present meeting, the imposition of a provisional measure on these 
products.7 
39. The representative of Argentina  expressed concern at the frequency with which Chile had 
applied measures in this sector.  Argentina recalled that provisional and definitive safeguard measures 
imposed on imports of these milk products and other similar products were the subject of 
consultations in this Committee in 2000.  In add ition, a safeguard measure for powdered milk, liquid 
milk and Gouda cheese was the subject of a cons ultation request under the DSU in 2006.  Argentina 
was concerned about the continued recurrence of th ese types of measures.  The notification made by 
Chile gave rise to several questions.  For example, the scope of "domestic industry" was, in the views 
of Argentina, inappropriate.  Also, the fact that liquid milk, powdered milk and Gouda cheese were all 
considered to be "directly competitive products" was, in the views of Argentina, inappropriate.  With 
regard to injury, further clarification was needed in terms of non-attribution.  The representative of 
Argentina stated that these were only preliminary questions.  Finally, he noted that Argentina had 
requested consultations with Chile  under Article 12.4 of the Agreem ent on Safeguards ("Agreement"). 
40. The representative of Chile  stated that Chile had accepted Argentina's request for 
consultations under Article 12.4 of th e Agreement, and that the consu ltations would be held on a date 
to be arranged.  In addition, as indicated in Chile 's notification, there would be a public hearing at 
which Argentina and other Members could put forwar d their views to the investigating authorities. 
                                                      
7 Circulated as document G/SG/N/7/CHL/9.  G/SG/M/36 
 Page 7 
 
 
  4. Croatia – Semi-Hard Cheese and Cheese Substitutes  
41. The Chairperson  noted that Croatia had made three notif ications regarding an investigation on 
semi-hard cheese and cheese substitutes in docum ents G/SG/N/6/HRV/1, G/SG/N/7/HRV/1–
G/SG/N/11/HRV/1 and G/SG/N/7/HRV/1/Suppl.1. 
42. The representative of the European Communities8 stated that the Eu ropean Communities was 
concerned by obvious breaches of WTO obligations.  First, Croatia imposed a provisional measure 
two months before initiating an investigation.  Second, the provisional measure was notified only one 
month after their imposition.  Third, the notification of the investigation was also late.  Finally, there 
was no meaningful preliminary determination showi ng that there was clear evidence that increased 
imports had caused or were threatening to cause serious injury.  These were very basic legal 
requirements that had not been met, and this was regrettable.  The representative of the European 
Communities stated that the investigation should be  terminated swiftly, and the provisional measure 
should be fully reimbursed as a matter of urgency. 
5. Dominican Republic – Glass Containers 
43. The Chairperson  noted that the Dominican Republic had made a notification regarding an 
investigation on glass containers  in document G/SG/N/6/DOM/1. 
44. The representative of the Dominican Republic  stated that the investigating authorities had 
decided not to take any provisional measure,  and would continue the investigation. 
45. The representative of the European Communities  welcomed the fact that no provisional 
measure was imposed.  This had to be so, because the measures were not legally warranted to begin 
with.  It seemed in this case that factors other than imports played an important role.  To name a few, 
there was apparently over-investment, and there was also a contraction in demand.  He stated that 
these issues should be examined in detail in order not to wrongfully attribute any injury to imports. 
6. India – Phthalic Anhydride 
46. The Chairperson  noted that India had made two notifi cations regarding an investigation on 
phthalic anhydride in documents G/ SG/N/10/IND/9–G/SG/N/11/IND/4 and 
G/SG/N/10/IND/9/Suppl.1. 
47. There were no comments or questions regarding these notifications. 
7. India – Dimethoate Technical 
48. The Chairperson  noted that India had made a notification regarding an investigation on 
dimethoate technical in document G/SG/N/8/IND/16/Suppl.1–G/SG/N/10/IND/10–G/SG/N/11/IND/3/Suppl.1. 
49. There were no comments or questions regarding this notification. 
                                                     
 
8 On 1 December 2009, the Treaty of Lisbon amendi ng the Treaty on Europe an Union and the Treaty 
establishing the European Community (done at Lisb on, 13 December 2007) en tered into force.  On 
29 November 2009, the WTO received a Verbal Note (WT/L/779) from the Council of the Eu ropean Union and 
the Commission of the European Communities stating that, by virtue of the Treaty of Lisbon, as of 1 December 2009, the European Union replaces and su cceeds the European Community.  Since the meeting 
took place before 1 December 2009, all the references in this minute are made as the "European Communities".  G/SG/M/36 
Page 8  
 
  8. India – Unwrought Aluminium, Aluminium Waste and Aluminium Scraps 
50. The Chairperson
 noted that India had made two notifi cations regarding an investigation on 
unwrought aluminium, aluminium waste and alumin ium scraps in documents G/SG/N/6/IND/26 and 
G/SG/N/7/IND/6–G/SG/N/8/IND/17. 
51. There were no comments or questions regarding these notifications. 
9. India – Plain Particle Board 
52. The Chairperson  noted that India had made two notifi cations regarding an investigation on 
plain particle board in documents G/SG/N /6/IND/25 and G/SG/N/7/IND/7–G/SG/N/8/IND/18. 
53. The representative of Thailand  raised several questions regarding these notifications.  First, 
she asked India to explain the link, found in th e second part of paragraph 4 of G/SG/N/7/IND/7, 
between safeguard duties and anti-dumping duties.  In Thailand's view, the conditions for imposing 
safeguard duties and the conditions for imposing anti-dumping duties were completely different.  
Second, the date of this notification was 1 July 2 009, while the preliminary fi ndings were published in 
India's gazettes on 4 May 2009.  India had notified th at neither the proposed date of introduction of 
the measure, nor the expected duration of the meas ure, was available yet.  Thailand requested an 
update on those two items. 
54. The representative of India  requested that Thailand provide these questions in writing.9 
55. The representative of th e European Communities  stated that this was not the first time that the 
European Communities had intervened  with regard to the Indian safeguard cases, and noted that the 
European Communities could have intervened in each and every one of the ten items concerning 
India's notifications.  The European Communities had identified a number of problems which were 
present in all the cases.  He stated that he w ould limit his intervention to this one case, on the 
understanding that the remarks applied equally to the other notifications made by India.  First, the 
European Communities was concerned by this wave of safeguard cases.  There had been eleven new 
safeguard investigations in less than one year.  The European Communities w as even more concerned 
by the standards applied.  These standards seemed to  be rather low.  The competent standing board's 
decision not to accept the recommendation of its i nvestigating authorities to impose provisional 
measures, and the termination of one investiga tion, were positive deve lopments.  There was 
nevertheless a problem because the launching of safe guard investigations creates uncertainty in the 
market.  The European Communities wished to specifically address several points.  First, India had 
not respected notification requirements.  India systematically notified the WTO around one month 
after the initiation of the investigation.  However,  the Agreement required that the notification be 
made immediately.  Second, the standards regard ing the determination of increased imports, serious 
injury or threat thereof, and causality were also  extremely low.  In the view of the European 
Communities, there were no increased imports.  The investigating authorities' conclusions of 
increased imports were based almost systematically on developments in the first two to three months of 2009, as compared to the last months of 2 008.  That was misleading because it did not give a 
representative picture.  When looking at the developments on imports on a yearly basis, from 2006 to 
2008, imports were indeed rather stable or decre ased overall.  The injury analyses were not objective 
for the same reason, that is, the limitation of the examination to a very short period of two to three 
months in 2009.  When looking at a longer period, injury was not obvious or existent at all.  In addition, not all of the injury factors that should have been analysed accord ing to the Agreement had 
been analysed.  Third, the causality analysis was almo st inexistent.  Factors other than imports had not 
been considered.  The European Communities had serious concerns regarding the compatibility of 
                                                     
 
9 The questions were subsequently circulated as document G/SG/Q2/IND/13.  G/SG/M/36 
 Page 9 
 
 
  these proceedings with WTO rules, and urged Indi a to terminate these investigations without any 
measures. 
10. India – Acrylic Fibre 
56. The Chairperson  noted that India had made two notifi cations regarding an investigation on 
acrylic fibre in documents G/SG/N/6/IND/21 and G/SG/N/7/IND/3. 
57. The representative of Thailand  asked India to again explain th e link between safeguard duties 
and anti-dumping duties found in G/SG/N/7/IND/3, since in Thailand's view these types of measures 
were separate and had different conditions under the relevant WTO rules.  She also requested an 
update from India on the proposed date of introducti on of the measure and the expected duration of 
the measure.  She also asked whether India had provided or would be providing an opportunity for 
consultations with Members with a substantial interest under Article 12.3 of the Agreement. 
58. The representative of the United States  reiterated some of the concerns raised by the 
European Communities regarding systematic probl ems in India's notifications.  India's late 
notification of safeguard actions seemed to be a systemic problem.  For example, there had been several findings that had not yet been notified to the Committee, including the following: linear alkyl 
benzene, where the preliminary findings were ma de on 30 January 2009, and had not yet been notified 
to this Committee; on plain particle board, the preliminary findings were made on 4 May 2009, and 
had not yet been notified to this Committee; and on uncoated paper and copy paper, the preliminary 
findings were made on 27 April 2009, and again were not yet notified to this Committee.  The United 
States urged India to make timely notifications for the sake of transparency. 
59. The representative of India
 stated that he had taken note of the concerns raised and requested 
Thailand and the United States to provide the questions in writing. 
11. India – Hot Rolled Coils/Sheets/Strips 
60. The Chairperson  noted that India had made two notifi cations regarding an investigation on 
hot-rolled coils, sheets and strips in docum ents G/SG/N/6/IND/22 and G/SG/N/7/IND/4. 
61. There were no comments or questions regarding these notifications. 
12. India – Coated Paper and Paper Board 
62. The Chairperson  noted that India had made two notifi cations regarding an investigation on 
coated paper and paper board in documen ts G/SG/N/6/IND/23 and G/SG/N/7/IND/5. 
63. The representative of the United States  indicated that it was the United States' understanding 
that India's standing board on safeguards had reco mmended that the investigating authorities go back 
and review the data related to this investigation because it was not clear that the domestic industry 
was being injured by imports.  She requested an update on the status of that review. 
64. The representative of India  stated that the investigating authorities had still not reported to the 
standing board.  Once that happened, India would notify to the Committee. 
13. India – Uncoated Paper and Copy Paper 
65. The Chairperson  noted that India had made a notification regarding an investigation on 
uncoated paper and copy paper in document G/SG/N/6/IND/24. G/SG/M/36 
Page 10  
 
  66. There were no comments or questions regarding this notification. 
14. India – Oxo Alcohols 
67. The Chairperson
 noted that India had made a notifica tion regarding an investigation on oxo-
alcohols in document G/SG/N/6/IND/20, and that the United  States had posed questions on this notification in document G/SG/Q2/IND/9. 
68. The representative of India
 stated that the questions had been sent to capital, and that a 
response could be expected soon. 
69. The representative of the United States  indicated that the United States had raised concerns 
about this investigation at the last meeting, and had since submitted written questions, and looked 
forward to the responses.  At the last meeting, the delegate from India had noted that no further 
decision had been made following the initiation of the investigation, and that if one were made, India 
would notify it.  According to the website of India' s investigating authorities, the final findings of the 
investigation were issued on 27 May 2009.  Howe ver, no notification was made to the Committee 
regarding that finding.  The United States requested  clarification from India on why the notification 
had not been made to the Committee, and when India expected to make this notification. 
70. The representative of the European Communities  stated that its question was the same as the 
United States.  The European Co mmunities wished to know the status of this investigation. 
71. The representative of India  stated that he would attempt to provide responses as soon as 
possible.10 
15. India – Sodium Hydroxide 
72. The Chairperson  noted that India had made a notification regarding an investigation on 
sodium hydroxide in document G/SG/N/6/IND/27. 
73. There were no comments or questions regarding this notification. 
16. Indonesia – Dextrose Monohydrate 
74. The Chairperson  noted that Indonesia had made a notification regarding an investigation on 
dextrose monohydrate in document G/SG/N/8/IDN/2-G/SG/N/10/IDN/2-G/SG/N/11/IDN/2. 
75. There were no comments or questions regarding this notification. 
17. Israel – Steel Rebars 
76. The Chairperson  noted that Israel had made a notifica tion regarding an investigation on steel 
rebars in document G/SG/N/7/ISR/1–G/SG/N/11/ISR/1. 
77. The representative of the European Communities  requested confirmation on whether the 
procedure was terminated, or whether it was st ill ongoing.  In addition, this investigation 
demonstrated that there was a problem in the treatme nt of confidentiality rules, as all injury indicators 
were blanked out, and nor was there a summary in indexed form.  He stated that this was not 
transparent. 
                                                      
10 Responses to the questions of the United Stat es were subsequently circulated as document 
G/SG/Q2/IND/10.  G/SG/M/36 
 Page 11 
 
 
  78. The representative of Israel  requested that the questions be submitted in writing.11 
18. Jordan – Ceramic Tiles 
79. The Chairperson  noted that Jordan had made a notification regarding an investigation on 
ceramic tiles in document G/SG/N/8/JOR/7–G/SG/N/10/JOR/7–G/SG/N/11/JOR/3. 
80. The representative of Egypt  stated that Egypt regretted this notification by Jordan.  
Throughout the investigation, Egypt had submitted  that the increase in imports was not recent, 
sudden, sharp or significant enough, both quantitatively and qualitatively, to cause or threaten to cause 
serious injury.  In contradiction with the findings of the Appellate Body in Argentina – Footwear , the 
trend in imports and the existence of serious inju ry, and the existence of a causal link between the 
two, had been examined over a five year period.  Also, the mere circumstance that domestic demand 
had changed could not be consid ered as an unforeseen development within the meaning of GATT 
Article XIX.  Furthermore, the investigating auth orities had failed to establish explicitly, through a 
reasoned and adequate explanation, that the injury caused by factors other than increased imports was 
not attributed to the increased imports.  Because of  these problems, Egypt trusted that Jordan would 
not impose any safeguard measure on imports of cer amic tiles.  Should that not be the case, Egypt 
reserved its right to challenge any measure that might be imposed. 
81. The representative of the European Communities  wished to echo some of the concerns that 
Egypt had expressed.  This was now the third time th is case had been dealt with in this Committee.  
The last two investigations did not lead to measures  and the same should happen  in this case, because 
the conditions were not met.  There was no sudden and sharp increase in imports.  There were other 
factors that caused the problems of the domestic indus try.  He stated that the investigation should be 
terminated without any measure. 
82. The representative of Jordan  stated that once Jordan reached  a decision, it would be notified 
to the Committee. 
19. Jordan – White Cement 
83. The Chairperson  noted that Jordan had made a notification regarding an investigation on 
white cement in document G/SG/N/9/JOR/8. 
84. There were no comments or questions regarding this notification. 
20. Kyrgyz Republic – Wheat of Flour 
85. The Chairperson  noted that the Kyrgyz Republic had made two notifications regarding an 
investigation on wheat flour in documents  G/SG/N/6/KGZ/2 and G/SG/N/7/KGZ/1–
G/SG/N/8/KGZ/1. 
86. There were no comments or questions regarding these notifications. 
21. Morocco – Polyvinyl Chloride (PVC) 
87. The Chairperson  noted that Morocco had made a notification regarding an investigation on 
PVC in document G/SG/N/6/MAR/5. 
                                                      
11 The questions were subsequently circulated as document G/SG/Q2/ISR/1. G/SG/M/36 
Page 12  
 
  88. The representative of the European Communities
 stated that while this was a case that had 
only been opened recently, the Euro pean Communities had looked at the information available so far.  
Its analysis suggested that there were a number of problems that were not linked to imports, in particular the heavy investments by the domestic industry and capacity extension.  The European 
Communities was very concerned that this inves tigation might be misused because the purpose of a 
safeguard measure was to allow a domestic industry to adjust to a surge of imports, not to reduce 
competition in order to give an industry time to find new customers for an increase in capacity.  The 
European Communities urged Morocco to  take this into consideration. 
89. The representative of Morocco
 stated that he had taken note of the European Communities' 
comments. 
22. Morocco – Ceramic Tiles 
90. The Chairperson  noted that Morocco had made a notification regarding an investigation on 
ceramic tiles in document G/SG/N/8/M AR/2/Suppl.2–G/SG/N/10/MAR/2/Suppl.2–
G/SG/N/11/MAR/1/Suppl.2. 
91. There were no comments or questions regarding this notification. 
23. Philippines – Steel Angle Bars 
92. The Chairperson  noted that Philippines had made a notification regarding an investigation on 
steel angle bars in document G/SG/N/8/PHL/7/Suppl.1-G/SG/N/10/PHL/6-G/SG/N/11/PHL/7/Suppl.1. 
93. There were no comments or questions regarding this notification. 
24. Philippines – Glass Mirrors 
94. The Chairperson
 noted that the Philippines had made a notification regarding an investigation 
on glass mirrors in document G/SG/N/14/PHL/4/Suppl .2, and also noted that Thailand had posed 
questions on this notification in document G/SG/Q2/PHL/6. 
95. The representative of the Philippines  responded orally to the follow-up questions posed by 
Thailand, and stated that the Philippines would circulate the responses in writing later.12  He stated 
that guarantees were not required during the suspen sion of the measure.  He confirmed that the 
measure would automatically be terminated a nd that the suspension would be revoked on 
8 December 2009 unless extended by another order.  He indicated that "normal operations" referred to 
the resumption of production of the subject product by the domestic industry, and that the major 
manufacturer of glass mirrors in the Philippines accounted for approximately 100% of domestic 
production.  Regarding duty reinstatement procedures , he explained that all interested parties would 
be notified, and would be requested to submit thei r comments before any duty was reinstated. In the 
event that the duty was extended, the Committee woul d be notified.  Finally, he indicated that the 
actual Order of 1 September 2008 suspending th e safeguard duty was recently notified to the 
Committee for greater transparency. 
96. The representative of Thailand  requested that this item be provisionally retained for 
discussion at the next regular meeting.  Thailand noted and welcomed the Philippines' statement of 
                                                      
12 Written responses have not been received as of the date of the drafting of these minutes, but Thailand 
has subsequently posed follow-up questions on these oral responses from the Philippines (see document 
G/SG/Q2/PHL/7).  G/SG/M/36 
 Page 13 
 
 
  intention to terminate this measu re in December 2009.  Because the measure had been suspended 
since September 2008, this indicated that the domestic industry was no longer seriously injured by imports, and the measure no longer necessary.  Thaila nd therefore urged the Philippines to ultimately 
terminate this measure altogether.  However, s hould the Philippines decide to extend the measure, 
Thailand noted that Article 7.4 of the Agreement re quired that an extended measure must not be more 
restrictive than it was at the end of its initial peri od, and should continue to be liberalized.  The 
representative of Thailand asked how it would be ab le to liberalize a measure that was currently 
suspended, if the Philippines deci ded not to terminate the measure. 
97. The representative of the Philippines
 stated that he had taken note of Thailand's question, and 
would provide a response in due course. 
25. Philippines – Figured Glass 
98. The Chairperson  noted that the Philippines had made a notification regarding an investigation 
on figured glass in document G/SG/N/6/PHL/4/Suppl.2. 
99. The representative of Thailand  stated that Thailand was disappointed that the Philippines was 
contemplating another extension of the measu re.  The measure was suspended first in 
December 2007. This effectively meant that the do mestic industry had been able to compete with 
imports under regular conditions for almost two ye ars.  Thailand did not understand why extending 
the measure was necessary at this time, and urged the Philippines to terminate the measure completely and as soon as possible.  As noted during the last agenda item, Article 7.4 of the Agreement required 
that an extended measure should not be more trade restrictive than it was at the end of its initial 
period, and should continue to be liberalized.  Th ailand therefore renewed its question, and asked the 
Philippines how it would be able to further liberaliz e a measure that was currently suspended, apart 
from terminating the measure altogether. 
100. The representative of the Philippines
 requested that Thailand provide the questions in 
writing.13 
26. Philippines – Float Glass 
101. The Chairperson  noted that the Philippines had made a notification regarding an investigation 
on float glass in document G/SG/N/6/PHL/5/Suppl.2. 
102. The representative of Thailand  stated that Thailand was disappointed that the Philippines was 
contemplating another extension of the measure.  She stated that here were two subcategories of float 
glass:  tinted float glass and clear float glass.  Th ailand was currently exempted from the Philippines' 
measure on tinted float glass.  Thailand urged the Philippines to continue this exemption if the 
measure was extended.  On clear float glass, the sa feguard duty had been decreased in annual tranches 
by the Philippines, as set out in G/SG/N/11/PHL/5/Suppl.5.  If the Philippines decided to extend this measure, it should continue to decrease the duty from the most recent rate, and not to backtrack to a 
higher rate of duty, which would be counter to the obligations in Article 7.4.  Thailand hoped that the 
measure would not be extended.  It was Thailand' s understanding that domestic prices for float glass 
in the Philippines were currently well above prevailing prices in ASEAN.  Furthermore, it was 
Thailand's understanding that the Philippines' domestic  industry continued to sh ip substantial volumes 
of float glass to Thailand, which indicated that the domestic industry was not injured, and the measure 
unnecessary. 
                                                     
 
13 The questions were subsequently circulated as document G/SG/Q2/PHL/8. G/SG/M/36 
Page 14  
 
  103. The representative of the Philippines
 requested that Thailand provide the questions in 
writing.14 
27. Turkey – Footwear 
104. The Chairperson  noted that Turkey had made two notif ications regarding an investigation on 
footwear in documents G/SG/N/6/T UR/6/Suppl.1 and G/SG/N/7/TUR/4. 
105. There were no comments or questions regarding these notifications. 
28. Turkey – Motorcycles 
106. The Chairperson  noted that Turkey had made two notif ications regarding an investigation on 
motorcycles in documents G/SG/N/6/TUR /10/Suppl.1 and G/SG/N/7/TUR/1/Suppl.1. 
107. There were no comments or questions regarding these notifications. 
29. Turkey – Vacuum Cleaners 
108. The Chairperson  noted that Turkey had made two notif ications regarding an investigation on 
vacuum cleaners in documents G/SG/N/6 /TUR/8/Suppl.1 and G/SG/N/7/TUR/5. 
109. There were no comments or questions regarding these notifications. 
30. Turkey –Steam Smoothing Irons 
110. The Chairperson  noted that Turkey had made two notif ications regarding an investigation on 
steam smoothing irons in documents G/SG/N /6/TUR/9/Suppl.1 and G/SG/N/7/TUR/6. 
111. The representative of the European Communities  stated that his intervention was related to 
the five items on the agenda concerning Turkey's extension notification.  The European Communities 
was seriously concerned by the simultaneous initia tion of five investigations on the extension of 
safeguard measures.  The Agreement limited the use of safeguard instruments to strictly exceptional 
circumstances, and it was obvious that an extension of such measures should occur even more rarely.  
The European Communities was even more concerne d by the fact that Turkey had not timely 
concluded the extension investigation on any of th e products.  Provisional measures had been imposed 
only to bridge the gap between the expiry of the or iginal measures and the conclusion of the extension 
investigations.  The European Communities did not see that this practice could be reconciled with the 
Agreement, and the measures should therefore alr eady be lapsed on that ground.  The European 
Communities also recalled that the prolongation of  safeguard measures beyond the 3-year period 
meant that Turkey had to offer compensation pursuan t to Article 8.1 of the Agreement.  Finally, the 
European Communities considered th at the extension of the safeguard measures were either no longer 
necessary because the industry was doing well, as w as the case in irons, vacuum cleaners and 
motorcycles; or the measures were not justified b ecause of the lack of adjustment of the Turkish 
domestic industry, as was the case in footwear and salt. 
112. The representative of Turkey  stated that according to the Turkish legislation on safeguards, an 
investigation can be initiated upon the receipt of  an appropriately documented petition for the 
application or extension of a safeguard measure.  He stated that it was well known that a safeguard 
measure may be extended as long as it was demonstrat ed that the measure continued to be necessary 
to remedy or prevent serious injury, and there w as evidence that the industry was adjusting.  Taking 
                                                      
14 The questions were subsequently circulated as document G/SG/Q2/PHL/8.  G/SG/M/36 
 Page 15 
 
 
  into consideration the submissions of the inter ested parties, it would be decided whether the 
conditions for the extension of these safeguard measur es had been fulfilled.  Regarding the application 
of the provisional measures, it was determined that the review investigation could be completed after 
the expiry of the original measures.  Hence, the pr ovisional measures were put into force with a view 
to avoiding any possible uncertainty that could le ad to damage to the recovery of the domestic 
industry.  Therefore, Turkey was of the view that  these provisional measures were in conformity with 
the Agreement.  Finally, the representative of Tu rkey noted that the provisional measures were not 
definitive extensions of the original safeguard measu res, and would be refunded if it were decided that 
there was no need to extend the measures. 
113. The representative of United States  made a general statement concerning all of the five 
extension notifications.  Turkey  had notified proposed duties, but  had not notified the Committee 
when the duties were actually im posed, leading to some confusion as to the implementation date of 
the measures.  Because Turkey had several safe guard measures that were or would soon be under 
review, the United States urged Turkey to notify the Committee when duties were actually imposed. 
114. The representative of Turkey  stated that he had taken note of the statement of the United 
States, and that Turkey would provide such notifications. 
31. Turkey – Salt 
115. The Chairperson  noted that Turkey had made two notif ications regarding an investigation on 
salt in documents G/SG/N/6/TUR/7/Suppl.1 and it s Corrigendum, and in G/SG/N/7/TUR/7 and its 
Corrigendum. 
116. The representative of Egypt  recalled that Turkey had imposed a safeguard duty in 
August 2006.  As a result of this safeguard me asure, exports of salt from Egypt to Turkey had 
decreased significantly.  In the fra mework of the review investigation, Egypt submitted that the 
continued imposition of a safeguard measure on impo rts of salt was unwarranted.  Indeed, the volume 
of imports of salt into Turkey significantly decr eased and the price of imports significantly increased 
since the imposition of the safeguard measure.  In  addition, no causal link had been demonstrated 
between the serious injury allegedly suffered by the Turkish industry and the imports of salt.  Pursuant 
to Article 8 of the Agreement, Egypt could have  requested the suspension of the application of 
substantially equivalent concessions or other obligations under GATT 1994.  Since Egypt believed 
that the Turkey would rapidly terminate the revi ew investigation and recommend the termination of 
the safeguard measure currently maintained on impor ts of salt, Egypt had not sought a suspension of 
concessions.  However, should an extension of th is safeguard measure be decided, Egypt would 
invoke its right of suspension. 
32. Turkey – Matches 
117. The Chairperson  noted that Turkey had made a notification regarding an investigation on 
matches in document G/SG/N/6/TUR/15–G/SG/N/7/TUR/3–G/SG/N/11/TUR/13. 
118. There were no comments or questions regarding this notification. 
33. Ukraine – Casing and Pump-Compressor Seamless 
119. The Chairperson  noted that Ukraine had made a notification regarding an investigation on 
casing and pump-compressor seamless steel pipes in document G/SG/N/13/UKR/1. 
120. There were no comments or questions regarding this notification. G/SG/M/36 
Page 16  
 
  34. Ukraine – Sheet Glass 
121. The Chairperson
 noted that Ukraine had made a notification regarding an investigation on 
sheet glass in document G/SG/N/6/UKR/4. 
122. There were no comments or questions regarding this notification. 
35. Viet Nam – Float Glass 
123. The Chairperson  noted that Viet Nam had made a notification regarding its investigation on 
float glass in document G/SG/N/6/VNM/1. 
124. The representative of Thailand  asked when a decision could be expected. Thailand also 
wished to know whether Viet Nam would be pr oviding an opportunity for consultations with 
Members having a substantial trade interest pursuant to Article 12.3 of the Agreement. 
125. The representative of Viet Nam  stated that he had taken not e of Thailand's questions, and 
requested that these questions be put in writing.15 
126. The representative of China  made a general statement that safeguard measures were 
frequently used by some Members, and stated that  China hoped that Members would be prudent when 
initiating investigations, and hoped that the inv estigations be consistent with WTO rules. 
127. The representative of Canada  also made a general comment regarding all of the safeguards 
investigations on the agenda.  Canada expressed  its concern over the co ntinued high level of 
safeguards investigations, particularly given the current difficult economic environment.  Safeguard 
measures were unique amongst trade remedy measures, in  that they targeted fairly traded imports, and 
as such, Canada encouraged Members to be especia lly diligent in following the rules governing their 
use.  It was important to ensure that these measure s were not used arbitrarily or as disguised barriers 
to trade. 
128. The Chairperson  thanked all delegations for their statements, questions and answers 
concerning the various notifications of actions related to safeguard measures.  She reminded 
delegations once again that any questions for which written responses were requested should be 
submitted to the Member concerned and to the S ecretariat no later than 9 November 2009.  She 
reminded delegations once again that written respon ses to questions, including questions submitted in 
writing prior to this meeting, should be submitted to the Secretariat no later than 30 November 2009. 
As with the legislative notifications, the draft a nnotated agenda of the next Committee meeting would 
indicate if there were any questions left unanswered. 
129. The Committee took note  of the statements made. 
C. TRANSITIONAL REVIEW UNDER PARAGRAPH 18 OF THE PROTOCOL OF ACCESSION OF THE 
PEOPLE 'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA TO THE WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION  
130. The Chairperson  noted that Paragraph 18 of China's Protocol of Accession provided that all 
subsidiary bodies, including the Safeguards Comm ittee, "which have a mandate covering China's 
commitments under the WTO Agreement or [the] Prot ocol shall, within one year after accession, 
review, as appropriate to their mandate, the implem entation by China of the WTO Agreement and of 
the related provisions of [the] Protocol".  China was to provide relevant information in advance of the 
review, including information specified in Annex 1A to the Protocol.  China could also raise issues 
                                                      
15 The questions were subsequently circulated as document G/SG/Q2/VNM/1.  G/SG/M/36 
 Page 17 
 
 
  relating to any reservations under Section 17 or to  any other specific commitments made by other 
Members in the Protocol, in subsidiary  bodies which have a relevant mandate. 
131. The Chairperson stated that th e Committee must report the results of the review promptly to 
the Council for Trade in Goods.  Review was to take  place after accession in each year for eight years, 
with a final review in year 10 or at an earlier da te decided by the General Council.  She added that 
there were no procedures set out for the conduct of th e transitional review in the Protocol, except that 
China was to provide relevant information in advan ce of the review.  In accordance with section IV.6 
of Annex 1A to the Protocol, China was required to  notify the Committee of its implementation of its 
Regulation on Safeguards.  The Chairperson info rmed the Committee that China had submitted the 
information on 30 September 2009, and was circulated as document G/SG/W/212. 
132. There was no Member that took the floor on the information submitted. 
133. The Chairperson  noted that China's Protocol of Accession contained no guidelines for 
reporting to the Council for Trade in Goods on th e Committee's transitional review of China's 
implementation of the Agreement.  She proposed  that the Committee foll ow the same reporting 
procedure as last year, whereby the Chairperson, acting on her own responsibility, would prepare a 
brief, factual report, with references to the doc uments concerned, and a ttaching the portion of the 
minutes of the meeting which relate to the transitional review. 
134. The Committee agreed  that the Chairperson should prepare the same type of report in respect 
of this year's review. 
D. POSSIBLE IMPROVEMENTS TO NOTIFICATIONS  
135. The Chairperson  recalled that the Committee had been discussing two types of drafts since 
October 2008:  two new formats – one regarding ex tension and the other regarding the so-called 
"cessation" – and improvements to four existing form ats.  At the most recent informal meeting held 
on 22 June 2009, Members had no more comments on th e new format regarding extension.  Likewise, 
at that meeting, there was only one comment, basi cally expressional, on the draft format concerning 
"cessation".  The latest draft had taken care of th at comment.  Regarding the improvement to existing 
four formats, there were several substantive comment s made at the 22 June meeting.  Since then, the 
Chairperson held intensive consulta tions with all the Members that had substantive comments, and the 
draft circulated on 18 September 2009 reflected the result of those consultations.  The Chairperson 
proposed that the Committee approve the drafts. 
136. There was no Member that took the floor, and the Committee approved  the drafts. 
137. The Chairperson  asked the Secretariat to issue the form ats as an official document as soon as 
possible16, and asked the Members to make use of these new formats when preparing notifications in 
the future. 
138. The representatives of Canada , Japan , Chile  and China  thanked the Chairperson for her efforts 
and underscored the significance of the achievement. 
139. The Committee took note  of the statements made. 
                                                      
16  The document was subsequently circulated as G/SG/1/Rev.1-G/SG/N/6/Rev.1-G/SG/89.   G/SG/M/36 
Page 18  
 
  E. 
PROPOSAL CONCERNING THE TIME -PERIOD TO BE CONSIDERED FOR THE CALCULATION OF 
IMPORT SHARE FOR PURPOSES OF ARTICLE  9.1  
140. The Chairperson  stated that this item was placed on the agenda at the request of the 
delegation of Chinese Taipei.  After reminding Members that a paper from Chinese Taipei was 
included in the document package of that morn ing, she proposed that the Committee hear the 
explanation of Chinese Taipei as well as the comments of the Members in informal mode. 
141. After hearing the explanation of Chinese Taipei and the comments of the Members in 
informal mode, the Chairperson stated that she w ould hold further informal discussions on this issue. 
F. OTHER BUSINESS  
142. The Chairperson  stated that while she highly appreciated the efforts of all the Members in 
notifying various safeguard actions , there were certain cases where the timing of the notification was 
less than ideal.  In addition, the statuses of some  investigations or actions were not always clear. 
Obviously, all notifications had to come from the Me mbers, and there was nothing that the Secretariat 
could do if no notification was submitted to begin w ith.  But she wished to draw the attention of the 
Members to some issues which may help in ensuri ng more timely circulation of notifications and 
more clarity on the status of the investigations.  Sh e asked the Secretariat to elaborate on these issues. 
143. The Secretariat  first explained that receiving electroni c versions of the notifications greatly 
accelerated the circulation.  If a notification was s ubmitted only in paper form, the Secretariat had to 
retype all of the text manually.  If the notification was a long one, especially with complicated tables with lots of figures, the retyping may take days.  Second, the Secretariat drew the attention of 
Members to one type of notification which the Comm ittee agreed in 1996 that it should be submitted:  
a notification to make when an inves tigation was terminated without measure.
17  That is, to submit a 
notification if the investigation resulted in a findi ng that no measure – provisional or final – was 
necessary.  The Secretariat explained that such notif ications were important to clarify the status of 
investigations. 
144. The Committee took note  of the statements made. 
G. ANNUAL REPORT TO THE COUNCIL FOR TRADE IN GOODS  
145. The Chairperson  noted that pursuant to Article 13.1(a)  of the Agreement, the Committee was 
to monitor the general implementation of the Ag reement and report on this annually, making any 
recommendations towards its improvement  to the Council for Trade in Goods. 
146. Concerning the preparation and adoption of the Committee's annual report, at its meeting of 
24 February 1995 the Committee decided to follow  the same procedure as in the Tokyo Round 
Committees on Anti-Dumping Practices and Subsidi es and Countervailing Measures.  In accordance 
with this procedure, a draft of the report in the form of a factual summary of the Committee's 
activities during 2009 had been prepared by the Secret ariat.  A preliminary draft of this report was 
made available to Members by fax on 14 October 2009. 
147. The Chairperson suggested that the Committe e consider the draft report paragraph by 
paragraph and then review the Annexes.  She furt her suggested that the Committee proceed with this 
work in informal mode. 
                                                      
17  See document G/SG/2.  G/SG/M/36 
 Page 19 
 
 
  148. After adjusting several factua l matters, the Committee adopted  its annual report to the 
Council for Trade in Goods for 2009 (see document G/L/901). 
H. DATE OF NEXT REGULAR MEETING  
149. The Chairperson  suggested that the Committee meet in th e week of 26 April 2010.  She stated 
that the exact date would be confirmed later. 
150. The Committee so agreed . 
__________